Professional Documents
Culture Documents
https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.48203
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
Abstract: The ground movement which occurred naturally and creates disaster to cause damage of the structures is called
Earthquake. In the earth’s crust seismic activities occur that creates waves. These waves transmit to structures through
foundation. Thus, due to this earthquake movements, inertia force is invoked in structure resulting in damaging the whole or
part of structure.
Base isolation is the recent development for seismic resistant designs, this may not be totally controlling the ground movement but
helps in minimising the impact of ground movement. Base isolation enables in reduction of earthquake forces by lengthening the
period of vibration of structure. Also, the structural response accelerations are less than the ground acceleration because of Base
isolation.
It helps in limiting the effects and after effects of earthquake and that’s why it is widely accepted in the whole world as one of the
most effective approaches in past few years. The response spectrum analysis is conducted on three different model using CSI
ETABSv19, several values of all three models were found out from Structure. Structure is Located in Earthquake Zone IV.
Three models are used for analysing the response of the building. The results of frequency, time period, displacement, drift,
storey overturning moment and storey stiffness are compared for G+25 RC frame structure with shear wall, RC frame structure
with base isolation and composite structures.
Keywords: Base isolation, composite structure, response spectrum, shear wall.
I. INTRODUCTION
This study examines the comparative analysis of the following three model i.e., RC frame structure with shear wall, RC frame
structure with base isolation and composite structure. The main purpose of Shear walls to provide large strength and stiffness to
building, which significantly reduces lateral sway of the building and thereby reduces damage to structure and its contents. In
present work linear dynamic analysis of G+25 RC frame structure with shear wall, RC frame structure with base isolation and
composite structures are analysed and compared. effect of all these structural components is calculated on structure having 25
Storey.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1323
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1324
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1325
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
B. Maximum Load Obtained after dynamic analysis on column is being taken for design of LRB
Table 6.4 Design Data for LRB OF G +25 for lateral load of 20500 KN
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1326
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
C. Descriptions Of Models
All three models which are considered for analysis, are shown below.
Figure 6.1 Plan and elevation view of G+25 Story RCC Structure with shear wall
Figure 6.2 Plan and Elevation view of G+25 Story RC frame Structure with base isolation.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1327
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
Figure 6.3 showing plan and elevation view of G + 25 story composite structure.
5
TIME PERIOD (SEC)
0 Modal 1 Modal 2 Modal 3 Modal 4 Modal 5 Modal 6 Modal 7 Modal 8 Modal 9 Modal Modal Modal
10 11 12
MODAL CASES
MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL 3
Figure 6.1. Showing modal time period of all three models.
The modal time period is maximum in model 2 which is 4.93 seconds and minimum in model 1 i.e., G +25 RC frame structure with
shear wall at core is 4.08 seconds and Modal time period in model 3 is 4.356 seconds.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1328
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
C. Storey Displacement
Story displacement is the lateral displacement of the story relative to the base. Response spectrum analysis of G+25 story RC frame
structure with shear wall, RC frame structure with base isolation and composite structure are performed. Story displacement is the
lateral displacement of the story relative to the base. story displacement is maximum in model 2 which is 72.481 mm and minimum
in model 1 which is 58.956 mm. story displacement in model 3 is 64.12 mm.
80
DISPLACEMENTS
70
60
DISPLACEMENTS (MM)
50
40
30
20
10
Base
Story25
Story24
Story23
Story22
Story21
Story20
Story19
Story18
Story17
Story16
Story15
Story14
Story13
Story12
Story11
Story10
0
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
STORY
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3
135000
MAXIMUM STORY
130000
125000
120000
115000
110000
MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3
MODEL
Figure 6.4 showing maximum story overturning moment for all three models.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1329
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
E. Story Drift
Storey drift is the difference of displacements between two consecutive story divided by the height of that story and Story
displacement is the absolute value of displacement of the storey under action of the lateral forces.
STORY DRIFT
0.00025
0.0002
STORY DRIFT
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
Base
Story25
Story24
Story23
Story22
Story21
Story20
Story19
Story18
Story17
Story16
Story15
Story14
Story13
Story12
Story11
Story10
0
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
MODEL
MODEL 1 MODEL2 MODEL 3
Story drift is maximum in model 2 and minimum in model 1. After analysis and all design check as per IS: 1893 (2016), storey drift
satisfies the design criteria and storey drift value is not exceeding 0.004 times storey height.
F. Base Shear
Base shear is the estimation of maximum expected lateral force which will occur at the base of a structure due ground motion during
the earthquake. Due to seismic activities, the ground start moving. Due to the movement of ground, lateral force is developed in
opposite direction of motion. That developed lateral force due seismic motion at the base of the structure is called base shear. base
shear is maximum in model 1 which is 1514.36 KN and minimum in model 2 which is 853.66 KN. base shear in model 3 is 1366.87
KN.
BASE SHEAR
1600
1400
BASE SHEAR (KN)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1330
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
G. Storey Stiffness
In structural engineering, the term'stiffness' refers to the rigidity of a structural element. In general terms, this means the extent to
which the element is able to resist deformation or deflection under the action of an applied force.
STORY STIFFNESS
STORY STIFFNESS KN/M
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
Base
0
Story25
Story24
Story23
Story22
Story21
Story20
Story19
Story18
Story17
Story16
Story15
Story14
Story13
Story12
Story11
Story10
Story9
Story8
Story7
Story6
Story5
Story4
Story3
Story2
Story1
STORY
MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3
Response spectrum analysis of G+25 story RC frame structure with shear wall, RC frame structure with base isolation and
composite structure are performed. story stiffness is maximum in model 1 which comes out to be 120627.1 KN/M and minimum in
model 2 which is 91676.5 KN/M. story stiffness for model 3 is 102533.5KN/M.
VIII. CONCLUSION
A. Time Period
1) The modal time period is maximum in model 2 which is 4.93 seconds and minimum in model 1 i.e., G +25 RC frame structure
with shear wall at core is 4.08 seconds and Modal time period in model 3 is 4.356 seconds.
2) Modal time period in model 2 is 20.83 % more than that of model 1 and 13.17% more than that of model 3.
3) Because of base isolation in model 2 the ductility of structure increases significantly which leads to increase in time period and
decrease in frequency.
B. Story Displacement
1) Story displacement is maximum in model 2 which is 72.481 mm and minimum in model 1 which is 58.956 mm. story
displacement in model 3 is 64.12 mm.
2) Story displacement in model 2 is 22.94% more than model 1 and 13.04 % as compare to model 3 respectively.
3) As rigidity increases displacement decreases and vice-versa.
D. Story Drift
1) Story drift is maximum in model 2 and minimum in model 1. After analysis and all design check as per IS: 1893 (2016), story
drift satisfies the design criteria and story drift value is not exceeding 0.004 times story height.
2) As the stiffness of the structure increases the drift ratio decreases and vice-versa.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1331
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
E. Base Shear
1) Base shear is maximum in model 1 which is 1514.36 KN and minimum in model 2 which is 853.66 KN. base shear in model 3 is
1366.87 KN.
2) Base shear in model 2 is reduced by 43.62 % as compare to model 1 and 37.54 % as compare to model 3 respectively.
3) As mass of a structure increases base shear also increases.
F. Story Stiffness
1) Story stiffness is maximum in model 1 which comes out to be 120627.1 KN/M and minimum in model 2 which is 91676.5 KN/M.
story stiffness for model 3 is 102533.5KN/M.
2) Story stiffness in model 2 is 31.57 % less than model 1 and 11.84 % less than as compare to model 3.
3) As the ductility of the structure increases, stiffness of the structure decreases and vice- versa.
REFERENCES
[1] Barbat A.H. and Bozzo L.M. (1997) “seismic analysis of base-isolation for building systems.” worldwide magazine technology, Engineering and era research
(IJSETR), four (four), 971- 974.
[2] Bozzo T.X. and Ming L.U. (2008). “Experimental and analytical evaluation of a base isolation system with rubber bearing”, ICCTT.
[3] Panchal D.R. and Marathe P.M. (2011). “Advanced Design of Composite Steel-Concrete Structural Element.” Journal Of Engineering Research and Applications
4 (7): 124– 38
[4] Renavikar A V, Suryawanshi Y. July, (2013). “Comparative Study on Analysis and Cost of RCC and Steel Composite Structure”. ISSN: 2319-7064, Volume 5,
Issue 7, IJSR.
[5] Shashikala K and S.V.Itti. (2013). “Comparative Study of RCC and Composite Multi- storeyed Buildings”. ISSN: 2277-3754, Volume 3, Issue 5, IJEIT.
[6] Harne V.R. (2014) “Comparative Study of Strength of RC Shear Wall at Different Location on Multi-storied Residential Building” International Journal of
Civil Engineering Research. ISSN 2278-3652 Volume 5, Number 4 (2014), pp. 391-400.
[7] Ahamad SA, Pratap K.V. (2020) “Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Existing RC School Buildings: The “P3” School Typology Department of Civil Engineering,
ISE.
[8] Mujawar Z, Sangave P, January, 2015. “Comparative Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete,Steel And Composite Structure Under the Effect of Static and Dynamic
Loading”. ISSN: 2248-9622, Volume 5, Issue 1, IJERA, Pg. No:41-44.
[9] Sangave P, S Waghmare, R Shete, V Mankondi, V Gundla.February, 2015. “Comparative Study of Analysis and Design of RC and Steel Structure”. ISSN:
2229-5518, Volume 6, Issue 2, IJSER
[10] Sattainathan.A, Nagarajan.N. March, 2015 “Comparative Study on The Behavior of Rcc Steel and Composite Structure (B+G+20 Storeys)”. Issn: 2395-3837,
Volume 1, Issue 3, Ijacee, Pg. No:21-26.
[11] Cholekar S.B., Basavalingappa S. M, July-2015. “Comparative Analysis of Multistoried RCC and Composite Building Due to Mass Irregularity”, ISSN: 2395-
0072, Volume 2, Issue 4, IRJET.
[12] Patil V, Kewate S, August-2015 “Comparative Study on Dynamic Analysis of Composite RCC and Steel Structure”. ISSN: 2349-4476, Volume 3, Issue 8,
IJETMAS.
[13] Zaveri, Bhavin H., Bhargav K. Panchotiya, Smit U. Patel, And Pratik A. Bilimoria. 2016. “Parametric Study of RCC, Steel and Composite Structures Under
Seismic Loading.” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 7 (4): 127–47.
[14] Desai S. and John K. (2015). “Seismic performance of base isolated multi-storey building. “Worldwide journal of scientific & Engineering studies, 6 (12), 84-
89
[15] Khan M.A.2017 Comparative Study Of R.C.C & Structural Steel -Concrete Composite Frame for Linear and Non-Linear Analysis
[16] Vinit G, Kadia N, Samanta K, October-2018. “Comparative Study of Rcc and Steel Structure for Different Floor Heights”. ISSN: 2349-2163, Volume 5, Issue
10, Ijirae.
[17] Jyothi D N, February-2018 “Comparative Analysis of Rcc and Steel Structure”. Issn: 23950072, Volume 5, Issue 2, IRJET.
[18] Paulo A. G. Piloto, Lucas M.S. Prates, Carlos Balsa, Ronaldo Rigobello ‘Fire Resistance of Composite Slabs with Steel Deck: Experimental Analysis and
Numerical Simulation.
[19] Wagh P.H, Kulkarni S. K., Kadlag V, 2019. “Comparative Study on Analysis and Design of RCC and Composite Structure”, ISSN: 2454-132X, VOLUME 5,
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1332
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
ISSUE 3, IJARIIT.
[20] Jagadale S, Shiyekar M.R. and Ghugal Y.M. July-2019 “Comparative Study of Steel, RCC and Composite Frame Building”. ISSN: 2395-0072, Volume 6,
Issue 7, IRJET.
[21] Rana M 2019 “comparative study in steel structure on better resistance against lateral load” ISSN: 2764-1322X, Volume 5, Issue 5, IJARIIT
[22] Patel K, Thakkar S. 2019 “Analysis of CFT (Concrete Filled Steel Tube), Rcc and Steel Building Subjected to Lateral Loading”, Elsevier.
[23] Savadi S. and Hosur V.2019 “Comparative Study of RCC, Steel and Composite Structures for Industrial Building”. ISSN: 2395- 4396, VOLUME 5, issue 4,
IJARIIE.
[24] Bhanu P.M. (2021) “Comparative Study of Composite RCC and Steel Structure” International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies III (I):
88–93.
[25] Nassani D.E. and Mustafa W.A. (2021). “Seismic Base isolation in reinforced Concrete structures.” international magazine of studies studies in technology,
Engineering and era, 2(2), 1-thirteen.
[26] IS: 456-2000 (Indian Standard Plain Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice)– Fourth Revision.
[27] IS: 1893-2002 (part-1), Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, fifth revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[28] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS:875-1987, (part 1), Dead Loads on Buildings and Structures, New Delhi, India.
[29] IS: 875-1987 (part-2) for Live Loads or Imposed Loads, code practice of Design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures.
[30] Duggal SK. Earthquake Resistant Design Structures. Oxford university press YMCA library building, New Delhi, 2010.
[31] IBC (2000). “International constructing Code”, worldwide Code Council, Inc., Virginia, U.S.A.
[32] IS: 13920 (2016). “Ductile layout and detailing of reinforced concrete systems subjected to seismic forces-code of practice.” Bureau of Indian requirements,
New Delhi, India.
[33] IS: 1893 (element I, 2002). “Standards for earthquake resistant layout of systems, element 1: general provisions and buildings [CED 39: Earthquake
Engineering]”, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, India.
[34] IS: 1893 (part I, 2016). “Standards for earthquake resistant design of systems, component 1: trendy provisions and homes [CED 39: Earthquake Engineering]”,
Bureauof Indian standards, New Delhi, India.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 1333